Tree of life not real (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, February 20, 2014, 07:39 (3907 days ago) @ David Turell

David: You are straining. I don't accept creation sites,because I know the true translation of Genesis. 'Yom' is any segment of time, not simply a day, and Christian creationists are confused by the KJV misinterpretation of yom. I've been on the Canyon and at rapid Lava Flow there is some jumbling, but not the other 220 miles. So I admit where appropriate volcanism can confuse layers, but lots of the world has identified layers which is why the great unconformity is identified at the canyon. Sorry, but I'm sticking with the generally accepted geology which I have been taught and seen and the general aging concepts.
> > -Maybe i shouldn't accept atheist sites, but I do, as long as the science is sound and they are not mucking around with the data and interpretations. I work in applied geophysics. While that does not qualify me as an expert, it's safe to say that I have had fairly extensive training in it. The number of ways that the Earth's layers can be formed, changed, twisted, and generally mucked about are many and varied. -Also, you missed the point of the volcano link (though I have more that provide better examples perhaps). It wasn't that the volcano mucked things up, but the LAKE that mucked things up. The lake bed, filled with all sorts of critters that had been there for ages, was transported away and deposited ON TOP OF more recent layers. A geologist from the future might look at the new sedimentary layers and assume, based on superpositioning, that the newly deposited lake bed material was formed AFTER the layers below it, despite the fact that we KNOW they were formed earlier. This has nothing to do with creationism, though I do not deny it lends credence to it. This is about what we have OBSERVED versus what we SPECULATE about. And that is the source of my real complaint here. -We routinely ignore what we have observed because it does not fit the 'consensus of scientist'. Well, the earth being round did not fit the consensus of scientist at the time either, but that didn't make it less true.-
 
>David: Two-three million years gap does not confuse the overall time lines. And besides this is an area where the Pacific plate and the North Americal plates are in a subduction zone where things get very jumbled. I've been on a river in that area where it was jumbled and the petrolium geologist with us was quite clear about that reasoning. And you are quoting a 1983 link. When was drift and subduction zones recognized finally, 1950's or 60's? And this link is 20 years later. Sorry, won't buy the complaint in the referrence which is just an isolated area. 
> > -Ok.. -Non-Volcanic natural earth layer transference.
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/hazards/primer/move.html
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Lahars/description_lahars.html
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Hydrology/framework.html
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Floods/description_floods.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_lake_outburst_flood-
Is 20 million years a big enough difference? What about 45 million? What about when they discard the data they don't want to see?
http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/123_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr123_30.pdf--Another example of discarding evidence that doesn't fit the theory. Notice how 'early dates' were considered contamination and discarded because they didn't fit the theory.
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/1439/1443-
"The comparison of the results shows considerable discrepancies between all three techniques but also inconsistencies between the results of the radiometric dating study with the assumed geological position of the samples. (HEY! These rocks aren't where they are supposed to be!!!) Problems of ESR seem to lie in AD estimation and problems of U-series dating in open system behaviour of the samples. The study implies that samples have to be very carefully selected in order to perform a meaningful dating comparison." (QUICK! Pick samples that fit the theory!)-http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027737919290063E-
Now, tell me again why I should trust this garbage?-
> David: The definition of species is fuzzy. but my point is the same. 99% of all species are gone. Not all the exiting species are identified. More are found every month. Species appear and disappear. Therefore, despite the inadequacies of the Darwin theory to explain it, speciation occurs. I think God helps it along. What is your point? It still is fuzzy to me. Your and I still have 3.5 billion years of life to deal with or are you still implying YEC or OEC to try and fit into a mistraslation of Genesis?-Just to use a different term here to be more clear, did the 'kind' go extinct, or only a variant of a 'kind'. Because I do not doubt for a moment that 90% of all variants are extinct. -As for the other, no, I do not believe in a literal 6 day creation some 6000 years ago. As you rightly pointed out, the word used in Genesis means 'period of time' not a literal 24 hour period. In fact, it absolutely states that it does not mean a literal 24 hour period since those weren't established until the 'fourth day'.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.